Talk:Activated sludge

Purposes

concerning the edits of Velela/ 5th July added: "4 driving off entrained gases carbon dioxide, ammonia, nitrogen etc. 5 generating a biological floc that is easy to settle. 6 generating a liquor low in dissolved or suspended material"

we talk here about the main purposes of an activated sludge process, i.e. why the hell would i build an activated sludge plant ? I will not build it to create a floc and remove CO2, but to remove organic matter, which will incidentally create a floc and take out CO2. probably, these steps might be detailed elsewhere in the article, but they are not purposes.

4. carbon dioxide is a by-product of endogenous respiration, not a purpose of the process. There is even no specific need to remove CO2, as it helps keeping a buffered pH I don't think ammonia can exist in activated sludge process, because under 9.3 of pH, ammonium is prevalent. never seen so far process with pH values that high. nitrogen is removed from the system in the denitrification step of nitrogen removal, mentioned in 2

5. the biological floc is the mean to reach the purpose, not a purpose by itself

6. I don't see how we can consider that activated sludge allow reducing the DS content. But I agree that SS is aggregated in the flocs. Kekel 15:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What the article actually says is :Activated Sludge process can be used for one or several of the following purpose: which I agree is a slightly strange way of approaching the subject. However, whilst this structure exists, my edits are only intended to demonstrate what reasonable outcomes any operator could expect of an activated sludge plant. All of them are relevant to nornal operations. Getting rid of CO2 and methane are critical considerations in a plant treating landfill leachate for example. The ability to create a floc is important if you have a waste stream poorly suited to filter bed treatment and having a settleable floc is essential in achieving the effluent standards. In extended aeraton plants managed to effect de-nitrification, the release of ammonia and nitrogen can both occur at near neutral pH - try sampling the atmosphere above an activated sludge tank receiving a high ammoniacal nitrogen load such a fish processing plant to demonstrate this. As for DS, which includes dissolved carbonaceous material etc, this is one of the principal purposes of sewage treatment - converting dissolved organics to floc using bacteria and protozoans (mostly) so that it can be settled out and removed. However , I do agree that this structure is less than helpful and a re-write would greatly assist understanding. Velela 18:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should limit this to "main purposes" or "guaranteed effluent vaues" ?

Found a reference:

As of Degremont's "Water Treatment Handbook" 6th English Edition, the applications of activated sludge are:

1- carbonaceous pollution removal

2- Nitrification and denitrification

3- biological phosphate removal

4- aerobic stabilization (which is actually aerobic digestion...)

My experience being principally in urban sewage treatment plants, main purposes are actually limited to the 4 above. With urban WT, DS and gases are not usually an issue - in fact I don't know any example.

As you seem to have experience in industrial water, maybe you could complete this with other industrial-specific references ?

Kekel 08:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy with Degremont's definitions. I can make the other points in the more relevant articles such as Leachate. Thanks Velela 08:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bacteria & Co

Being a bit in a hurry, I have no time to edit this article further at the moment. but I'm embarrassed by an obvious flaw: only bacteria are mentioned, though other folks are involved in the process, such as protozoans. Could anyone there be kind enough to complete this and add the nice wikilinks to other organisms ? Kekel 08:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few bits and peices but I need to find my reference books that have been sat on the shelves for the last 40 years to provide definitive context and references. Velela 09:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Globalize Tag

The globalize tag has been added more than 5 months ago without explanation on what in this article is UK biased. Working in the water treatment field, I'm not from the UK but I don't really see what is so biased in this article.

I'm removing the tag. Feel free to revert or to "globalize" this article if you can document this. --GrDn (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

Are images such as this relevant? It's of the micro-organisms. EChastain (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this image would be relevant (with the right caption) as it shows activated sludge under the microscope. EvM-Susana (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I have added this image now to the text. Would be good if someone could identify more exactly the microorganism that is shown there to make the caption more precise. I can't remember off the top of my head, would have to look it up somewhere.EvM-Susana (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree that the image should be present, these organisms are what Activated sludge is. There are two species included in the picture, one is a colonial Voticelid such as Carchesium (although not Carchesium) and the other appears to be a single Heliozoan. I'll try to check them out later today  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

From the images it is very difficult to make a definitive identification even to genus level, but it looks like a colony of Epistylis, all with their coronas of cilia retracted, and a stalked Heliozoan of some sort. It would probably be incorrect to assign a more definite identification unless the photographer can provide some information or unless there is an expert in freshwater protozology lurking around! Regards 20:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Activated sludge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928105619/http://products.ihs.com/cis/Doc.aspx?AuthCode=&DocNum=252510 to http://products.ihs.com/cis/Doc.aspx?AuthCode=&DocNum=252510
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508120053/http://epa.gov/owm/mtb/apartlag.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/apartlag.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Activated sludge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120907112903/http://www.ragsdaleandassociates.com/WastewaterSystemOperatorsManual/Chapter%2017%20-%20Mathematics.pdf to http://www.ragsdaleandassociates.com/WastewaterSystemOperatorsManual/Chapter%2017%20-%20Mathematics.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114140052/http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=7112203&q=&uid=788301038&setcookie=yes to http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=7112203&q=&uid=788301038&setcookie=yes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Process control

I'm not convinced that RAS controls MLSS, as claimed in the article.

Based on these control methods, the amount of settled solids in the mixed liquor can be varied by wasting activated sludge (WAS) or returning activated sludge (RAS).

Unless what is meant is that varying the RAS ration affects the RAS / WAS solids, so affecting the WAS flow required for a given MLSS.

But treating WAS as a fixed mass flow of solids then RAS drops ou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendel boy (talk • contribs) 13:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Content addition that is not encyclopedic

Hi User:Marllg: I've just reverted your addition a second time because: this content is not wrong but it has been added without any refs, and some of it is too detailed, like a how-to guide and thus not encyclopedic. Please discuss it here further before putting it back in. EMsmile (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I have performed revision deletion as pretty much all of the text was copied from other websites and documents that do not appear to be compatibly licensed. DanCherek (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)